Triples and/or Free For Alls (4) in SSBC Tournamets?

After playing the 0.9 test version of Crusade, I find it really fun and amazing! It was even more amazing when they added 2 more slots, instead of just 4.  

Three pretty good ideas popped in my head. They can be great for tournaments(I think...). And I want to share this to all of you. So lets talk this out shall we? Starting with the triples:

1. 2v2v2
- Yes, I am well-aware that 6 people in one stage will equal chaos, but think about though. Three different teams in a match can be pretty interesting.

2. 3v3
- Adding a new teammate for your team can really heat things up in battles. Maybe even new strategies and team combos.

3. 1v1v1v1
- From what I know, this type of thing never happens in the world of Smash in tournaments. 4 people in 1 stage isn't crazy as 6 people in 1 stage, you know.

So, what do you think? Can the following above can be approved?
Answers, please!  

I think these all exist. There are six available pallets to choose for each character.

I think he means making tournament events out of them.

Triples would be sensible and interesting (Pokemon did it too), but a 1v1v1v1 is just a four player free for all, something which is looked down upon in competitive play generally.
2v2v2 would be interesting but not really ideal for a tournament because it could very easily turn into a 2v4 for any given team.

DettaDoodleus wrote:

I think he means making tournament events out of them.

Triples would be sensible and interesting (Pokemon did it too), but a 1v1v1v1 is just a four player free for all, something which is looked down upon in competitive play generally.
2v2v2 would be interesting but not really ideal for a tournament because it could very easily turn into a 2v4 for any given team.

Oooh, my mistake.

DettaDoodleus wrote:

I think he means making tournament events out of them.

Triples would be sensible and interesting (Pokemon did it too), but a 1v1v1v1 is just a four player free for all, something which is looked down upon in competitive play generally.
2v2v2 would be interesting but not really ideal for a tournament because it could very easily turn into a 2v4 for any given team.

Really?! I didn't know that.

Btw, DettaDoodleus, how is 3v3s sensible?

It's just taking doubles and adding a third person to each team. Pokemon did it in fifth gen with Triple battles, and as far as I know, it works fairly well as a battle system.

Sensible meaning, it would make sense for triples to be a thing.

Drawing parallels between competitive Pokemon and competitive Smash isn't the most solid thing, but his point still stands. 3v3 is perfectly viable.

2v2v2 has potential. The idea of it becoming a 2v4 can be somewhat strategic, especially as there are only three teams on the stage. Part of this can actually become trying to team up against your weakest matchup, while the opponent does the same. Since there are only three possible team-ups (alone, with one pair, with another pair), this can add an interesting layer to the mindgame aspect.

I think 3 Vs 3 is actually a good idea! but for the 2 Vs 2 Vs 2, IDK, it sounds cool, but it also sounds wrong, just imagine if a team does an alliance with another to take the other one out?

3v3 is fine, not the others. 2v2v2 is no better than 1v1v1, in competitive play there should never be more than 2 teams. How would you even do a bracket with 3 teams per match?

Perfect Hell wrote:

3v3 is fine, not the others.  2v2v2 is no better than 1v1v1, in competitive play there should never be more than 2 teams. How would you even do a bracket with 3 teams per match?

1. Do you mean 1v1v1v1?
2. That's quite a good question...

Hmmmmm...   Maybe something like this:

This is an example that's based off a Bowling Tournament. It's what I can find.

As for 2v2v2, this is how I see it.

While I do agree that 3 separate teams can cause a gang-up on 1/3 of the team, in the end of the match, there can only be one winner. Not to mention that everyone within the match can still hit each other intentionally or not, at times the 2 teams teaming up may get in the way of the other. I'm sure that there are a lot of players who wouldn't want to "stay hit" even if it was an accident. lol. So the tables can turn on many occasions. Not sure if friendly fire is mandatory in team tourneys though, but if so, that is more caution for each player if they ever want to gang up.

Also, I don't see the logic of ganging up against the weakest team. If I were in a situation where myself & my partner have to team up with another team to take out another, I would target the strongest team possible. Why would I want to get rid of the weak links? Wouldn't I want them to weaken the strongest team, act as a distraction, etc? If the strongest team gets eliminated first, that just leaves myself & the weak links, thus increasing my chances of winner much better rather than eliminating the weaker team first then left alone with the stronger team.


But yea, you are open to start a tourney for the community in whichever way you would like it. No one will hold you back from it. Hell, as the main guy running the forum News Feed, I can even advertise it within the community. Though I must add that if the settings on the tourney doesn't match the viable rules of the traditional Crusade tourney, it will not be added on Win/Loss records or even the Power Rankings.

The21stSmasher wrote:

Hmmmmm...   Maybe something like this:

This is an example that's based off a Bowling Tournament. It's what I can find.

You're forgetting that most, if not all, tournaments for video games are double elimination. This will become a problem since you would have two losers. Two losers brackets is pretty obscene.

C_Mill24 wrote:

The21stSmasher wrote:

Hmmmmm...   Maybe something like this:

This is an example that's based off a Bowling Tournament. It's what I can find.

You're forgetting that most, if not all, tournaments for video games are double elimination. This will become a problem since you would have two losers. Two losers brackets is pretty obscene.

Well, yes and no, because the number of pools must be even, you know like 2, 4, 6, 8, etc. Since there's gonna be 2 losers for the losers bracket, the number of pools shouldn't be odds. That way things don't become a issue for the losers.

Smash King wrote:

If I were in a situation where myself & my partner have to team up with another team to take out another, I would target the strongest team possible.

This is the entire problem with 2v2v2; the best team likely won't win unless they are leagues ahead of the other two teams, because the two weaker teams will almost always team up against the best team so they have a better chance at winning.

Well Det in reality it's not so black-and-white who the "best team" is. More often than not you'll have two or three teams that are as good as each other, and then it wouldn't be so obvious how they would team up.

Imagine the sick combos 3 people can do together or the strategies and such.

I'd like to see a 3v3